Courts have the inherent power to amend the decree to bring it in conformity with the judgment, and there is no period of limitation for filing an application under Section 152 of CPC.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep K Shinde, J. - Rule.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard. finally with the consent of the parties.

3. Petitioners-Landlords are decree holders. Their Civil Miscellaneous Application No.184 / 2018, seeking for corrections in the decree was rejected on 12th July, 2019 by learned District Judge - I, Nashik. Against this order, Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred.

4. Briefly stated Petitioners' case is;

Petitioners-Landlords sought decree to recover possession of the suit property ad-measuring 5 x 3 square meters, of house no. 434 at Nashik, for their bonafide and reasonable need. Landlords alleged the tenant/ respondent, encroached upon and erected permanent structure, beyond the area of suit property. Thus alleged tenant was found occupying area ad- measuring 33.45 square meters of house no. 434, as against the 15 square meters. The bonafide need of the Landlords was upheld by the trial and Appellate Court. Civil Revision Application preferred by the tenant was dismissed. The Special Leave Petition (SLP) was also dismissed.

5. The Courts below rendered a finding, the property let out to the tenant was ad-measuring 20 x 20 square feet and not just 15 square meters. Reliance was placed on a document, Usanwar Pavti (Rent note Exhibit-49) executed between the parties. Courts below held thus;

"From this documentary evidence, it is crystal clear that Defendant (tenant) is in possession of area ad-measuring 400 square feet, since inception of the tenancy. (Emphasis supplied).

. The learned trial Court framed following issue; 'whether plaintiffs proved that Defendant encroached over the rest of the premises of the plaintiffs and thereby breached the terms and conditions of the tenancy' and answered as follows;

"Issue No.3 : The next ground for eviction is that the defendant encroached over the adjoining premises of the plaintiffs and thereby breached the terms and conditions of the tenancy. P.W.1 Jagannath More disc"The learned Advocate of the appellant has argued that the learned lower court held that there was no encroachment and the findings were given with proper reasoning. There is an admission by the Plaintiffs about Usanwar patra Exh.49 which is dated 9.9.1974 and the Municipal Record is for the year 1975-76 after the said Usanwar Patra was executed, but the Plaintiffs have not made any grievance at the relevant time when Usanwar patra was executed. Therefore, at this juncture, what is demised premises in the possession of appellant is since the time when they entered into the contract of tenancy and the possession is to be taken into consideration and the learned lower court was rightly held that appellant is in possession of 20 x 20 Sq.Feets premises. Hence, it need nor to answer the issue of encroachment in the affirmative as submitted by learned Advocate of the respondents in cross objection."losed in his evidence that the area of 15 sq. mts. was let out to defendant, but at present he is in possession of area admeasuring 33.45 sq.mts. Admittedly there was no written rent note between the parties. P.W.1 has also not disclosed in his evidence that on which date, month and year the defendant encroached over the adjoining premises. The plaintiffs have also not produced the counter part of the rent receipt in order to establish that what area was let out to the defendant. The learned advocate for the defendant urged that approximately area admeasuring 20' x 20' was let out to the defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 160/-. There was a Usanwar Pavti between the plaintiffs and defendant wherein the measurement of the demised premises was mentioned. The defendant has produced the original Usanwar Pavti at Exh.49 which was in between the present defendant and present plaintiff No.1 Jagannath and father of the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5. The learned advocate for the plaintiffs urged that such type of Usanwar Pavti was never executed between the parties. It is significant to note that it was speci